Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and author who became a force for good, working against the unfathomable evil of Nazism. It cost him his life.
A true Christian hero (OneNewsNow.com)
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Who is rewriting history?
From OneNewsNow.com
Who is rewriting history?
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 3/29/2010 7:30:00 AM
As both a history teacher and a conservative, I have to admit to being quite amused by the foaming-at-the-mouth reaction liberals have had recently to the Texas Board of Education. It seems that the board has approved changes to the history curriculum adopted for use in the Texas public school system.
The New York Times, ever the beacon of objectivity and fairness, described the changes as, "put[ting] a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks."
The reason I find this situation amusing is because when you look at the actual changes approved for the curriculum, they demonstrate an effort to undo the revisionist, multicultural, politically correct garbage that has overrun American and world history texts for a generation. In other words, the left isn't worried about history being rewritten; they're worried about seeing the history they've already rewritten being restored.
Take, for example, the curriculum surrounding World War II. In history texts today, the liberal narrative is dominant: that the United States interned Japanese citizens because of fear, prejudice and inherent discrimination against a foreign race. The Texas Board of Education has now required that narrative to include the reality that in addition to Japanese, both Germans and Italians living in the United States during World War II were also interned.
Or consider the treatment of "McCarthyism." Liberal academics have long used high school and college history texts to portray this era as the lowest example of anti-communist paranoia run amuck. But the Texas Board has now passed an amendment requiring that any retelling of McCarthyism include "how the later release of the Venona papers [PDF] confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
Are these examples of "putting a conservative stamp on history?" No. They're simply telling the truth.
Though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to carry forth their self-loathing, Americans-as-imperial-racists agenda, we did intern Germans and Italians (the same race) as well as Japanese.
And though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to portray all conservatives as paranoid freaks who see communists under their beds, the Venona documents of declassified information did reveal that there were indeed multiple examples of Soviet operatives in high-ranking positions of American government.
Other examples abound. The left may prefer that free-market giants Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek be excluded from school curriculum in deference to John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to include them in American economics courses.
The left may find that teaching the violence inherent in the Black Panther movement hampers their lopsided retelling of the Civil Rights era, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to tell students the full story.
And not just the full story, but the true story. In what I think was the most illuminating example of what's happening in textbooks today, Mavis B. Knight, a liberal Democrat from Dallas, proposed that the Texas curriculum require students to study why "the founding fathers...barred the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."
The problem with Ms. Knight's proposal is that it's simply not true. As the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives pointed out in 1854 while studying this very subject, "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, [just] not any one [denomination].... The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among [Christian denominations] to the exclusion of others....There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."
An error indeed. An error fabricated and perpetuated by the modern left whose allegiance to telling the truth about our past extends only to those phrases, figures, events or occurrences that fit their own ideological agenda.
Ms. Knight is indicative of what the left has been doing to the history textbooks for a generation. They see the events of the past as mere objects to be manipulated, changed, and rewritten so as to provide a catalyst for the social change they desperately desire.
But don't take my word for it. Their current opposition to the inclusion of factual history that they simply don't like, coupled with their continued insistence on trying to include blatantly false propaganda, reveals all you need to know about who is attempting to "rewrite" the pages of our history.
Peter Heck (peter@peterheck.com) hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana. "The Peter Heck Show" comments on social and political issues -- and doesn't shy away from recognizing how faith influences politics. This column is printed with permission.
Who is rewriting history?
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 3/29/2010 7:30:00 AM
As both a history teacher and a conservative, I have to admit to being quite amused by the foaming-at-the-mouth reaction liberals have had recently to the Texas Board of Education. It seems that the board has approved changes to the history curriculum adopted for use in the Texas public school system.
The New York Times, ever the beacon of objectivity and fairness, described the changes as, "put[ting] a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks."
The reason I find this situation amusing is because when you look at the actual changes approved for the curriculum, they demonstrate an effort to undo the revisionist, multicultural, politically correct garbage that has overrun American and world history texts for a generation. In other words, the left isn't worried about history being rewritten; they're worried about seeing the history they've already rewritten being restored.
Take, for example, the curriculum surrounding World War II. In history texts today, the liberal narrative is dominant: that the United States interned Japanese citizens because of fear, prejudice and inherent discrimination against a foreign race. The Texas Board of Education has now required that narrative to include the reality that in addition to Japanese, both Germans and Italians living in the United States during World War II were also interned.
Or consider the treatment of "McCarthyism." Liberal academics have long used high school and college history texts to portray this era as the lowest example of anti-communist paranoia run amuck. But the Texas Board has now passed an amendment requiring that any retelling of McCarthyism include "how the later release of the Venona papers [PDF] confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
Are these examples of "putting a conservative stamp on history?" No. They're simply telling the truth.
Though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to carry forth their self-loathing, Americans-as-imperial-racists agenda, we did intern Germans and Italians (the same race) as well as Japanese.
And though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to portray all conservatives as paranoid freaks who see communists under their beds, the Venona documents of declassified information did reveal that there were indeed multiple examples of Soviet operatives in high-ranking positions of American government.
Other examples abound. The left may prefer that free-market giants Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek be excluded from school curriculum in deference to John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to include them in American economics courses.
The left may find that teaching the violence inherent in the Black Panther movement hampers their lopsided retelling of the Civil Rights era, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to tell students the full story.
And not just the full story, but the true story. In what I think was the most illuminating example of what's happening in textbooks today, Mavis B. Knight, a liberal Democrat from Dallas, proposed that the Texas curriculum require students to study why "the founding fathers...barred the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."
The problem with Ms. Knight's proposal is that it's simply not true. As the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives pointed out in 1854 while studying this very subject, "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, [just] not any one [denomination].... The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among [Christian denominations] to the exclusion of others....There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."
An error indeed. An error fabricated and perpetuated by the modern left whose allegiance to telling the truth about our past extends only to those phrases, figures, events or occurrences that fit their own ideological agenda.
Ms. Knight is indicative of what the left has been doing to the history textbooks for a generation. They see the events of the past as mere objects to be manipulated, changed, and rewritten so as to provide a catalyst for the social change they desperately desire.
But don't take my word for it. Their current opposition to the inclusion of factual history that they simply don't like, coupled with their continued insistence on trying to include blatantly false propaganda, reveals all you need to know about who is attempting to "rewrite" the pages of our history.
Peter Heck (peter@peterheck.com) hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana. "The Peter Heck Show" comments on social and political issues -- and doesn't shy away from recognizing how faith influences politics. This column is printed with permission.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
I Believe George Washington was a Christian
From Veritas Press
Paul Boller wrote, "Broadly speaking, of course, Washington can be classified as a Deist."1 Most recent scholars have followed this perspective: "A luke-warm Episcopalian,"2 a "warm Deist,"3 "not a deeply religious man,"4 "not particularly ardent in his faith,"5 "one who avoided as was the Deist custom, the word 'God.'"6
Nevertheless, Washington's description of his faith is different, repeatedly using words like "ardent," "fervent," "pious," and "devout." In fact, he described himself as one of the deepest men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, "No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary."7
Rather than avoid the word "God," on the first national Thanksgiving under the U.S. Constitution, he wrote, "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor."8 Although he never claimed to be a "Deist" in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ as "the divine Author of our blessed religion." He encouraged missionaries who were seeking to "Christianize" the "aboriginals." He wrote in a private letter, "on my honor and the faith of a Christian." He publically wrote of "the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God." He encouraged seekers to learn "the religion of Jesus Christ." He even said to his soldiers, "To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian." Not bad for a "luke-warm" Episcopalian!
Arguments for Washington's Unbelief
Clearly, Washington's faith has been denied by recent scholars. The scholarly consensus since the Washington bicentennial in 1932 is that he was a Deist, a non-religious person who believes in a remote and impersonal God. But when the evidence is considered, is it clear that Washington was a Deist? Typically, the evidence employed to substantiate Washington's deism includes: he avoided the name of Jesus Christ; he used Deist titles for the name of God; he never seriously referred to the Bible; he was a Mason; he was a slave owner; he had an alleged tryst with Sally Fairfax, a married woman. A careful study, however, shows these arguments fail to remove the legitimacy of Washington's faith.
Washington venerated the name of Jesus Christ, using it thousands of times in worship, although rarely doing so in his commonplace writings. Yet this practice is consistent with Christians to this day. Washington's titles for deity are not those of Deists as claimed. Instead, they are the terms of the orthodox clergy of his day-some 95 different ones in all-and names that Deists did not use.
Moreover, Washington was Biblically literate, referring to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation hundreds of times. He even publically endorsed an evangelical study Bible.
The bylaws of the Masonic Order of Washington's day prohibited "stupid atheists and deists" from being members! For Washington to have been a Mason then was actually an evidence of being a Christian, not of being an unbeliever!
Tragically, Washington was a slave-owner. Yet he alone of all of our Founders who held slaves had the courage to advocate the abolition of slavery and to provide for their manumission and support in his will.
Washington's relationship with Sally Fairfax reveals his emotions were moved at a vulnerable point in his young military life, but their honor remained unsullied, and his friendship with the Fairfax family was never tarnished.
In sum, to prove a vital faith does not require perfection, a standard needed only for a hagiography. Instead, a vital faith demands an authenticity of faith and character over the course of a life. So while Washington was not perfect, he was a man consistently concerned about faith, character and honor, referring to them hundreds of times.
Arguments for Washington's Christian Faith
The evidence of Washington's religious life reveals a vast array of data that substantiates Washington's vital life of faith.
1. Washington's family was explicitly Christian and actively Anglican. His childhood education was conducted under Anglican tutors.
2. His military career was framed by morning and evening prayers following the Christian "divine service" of the Book of Common Prayer. Washington's military vocabulary manifested Christian theological terms: pardon, redemption, atonement, grace, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, justification, imputation of guilt, appeal to heaven.
3. He married a devout Christian and trained their adopted children under Anglican clergy, buying them Christian text books, prayer books, and Bibles. Martha and their adopted grandchildren affirmed that Washington was a Christian.
4. He governed in the Anglican Church, taking vows to its Christian worship and doctrines. His attendance, contributions, and involvement in issues concerning church government and religion in the House of Burgesses were exemplary. His ecclesiastical vocabulary was extensive.
5. He sponsored eight children for Christian baptism, something that Thomas Jefferson would not do. Jefferson's Unitarianism prevented him from taking the required vows to the Christian faith. Washington did not hesitate to take these Christian vows.
6. He encouraged the clergy and chaplains as a military, ecclesiastical, and civil leader. When such were not available, he performed their functions, leading in prayers. He conducted the Christian funeral for General Braddock in 1755. His granddaughter wrote, "His mottoes were, 'Deeds Not Words'; and 'For God and My Country.'"
7. As a reader, listener and collector of Christian sermons, his vocabulary was replete with theology. He writes of God some 140 times, the divine 95 times, heaven 133 times, Providence 270 times, and uses various other honorific titles for God some 95 times. He alludes to approximately 200 different biblical texts, some of them scores of times, and does so in ways that show he was remarkably biblically literate.
8. He was a praying man, evidenced by a prayer book he ordered to fit in his pocket. More than 100 prayers in his own hand are found throughout his private and public letters. Even his enemies acknowledged his prayer life.
9. Washington was aware of human spirituality, referring to the human spirit, and acknowledging the Holy Spirit and His work. Accordingly, he manifests concern for prayer, dependence on Providence, and trust in God.
10. Washington identified himself as a Christian when he freely wrote, "On my honor and the faith of a Christian . . ."9 He called on his army to be Christian soldiers: ". . . The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."10
11. Washington never claimed to be a Deist and criticized Deistic thought and ethics. Thomas Paine, the patriotic writer of Common Sense, was Washington's friend. But Paine, the critic of revealed religion in the Age of Reason, received Washington's silence. Instead, Washington's letters manifest a commitment to revelation joined with a "rational ground for belief." He described himself as "no sceptic on normal occasions."
12. Contemporaries such as Major-General Henry Lee, Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, Reverend Jonathan Boucher, President James Madison and historians like Aaron Bancroft, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jared Sparks, and James K. Paulding considered Washington to be a Christian.
To conclude, Christian faith must be an integral part of our description of our Founding Father, for Christianity was an integral part of Washington's life.
Peter Lillback
Dr. Peter A. Lillback is President and Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary located in Philadelphia. Dr. Lillback also serves as the President of The Providence Forum, the non-profit organization that is committed to preserving and promoting America's spiritual roots of religious and civil liberties. He just completed his service at Proclamation Presbyterian Church PCA after nearly twenty years. He is married and has two grown daughters.
---------------------------
1 The reader is invited to refer to my George Washington's Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum Press, 2006), pp. 25ff for scholarly references.
2 Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 2004).
3 Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents From Washington to FDR (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995).
4 Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997).
5 Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington A Biography. 7 Vols (New York:, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948).
6 James T. Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (New York: Signet, 1984).
7 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 37, 5-13-1776.
8 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
9 George Washington, 1763, George Washington letter to Robert Stewart , April 27, 1763, John Rhodehamel, ed., George Washington Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 108.
10 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, vol. V, pp.244-245
Paul Boller wrote, "Broadly speaking, of course, Washington can be classified as a Deist."1 Most recent scholars have followed this perspective: "A luke-warm Episcopalian,"2 a "warm Deist,"3 "not a deeply religious man,"4 "not particularly ardent in his faith,"5 "one who avoided as was the Deist custom, the word 'God.'"6
Nevertheless, Washington's description of his faith is different, repeatedly using words like "ardent," "fervent," "pious," and "devout." In fact, he described himself as one of the deepest men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, "No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary."7
Rather than avoid the word "God," on the first national Thanksgiving under the U.S. Constitution, he wrote, "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor."8 Although he never claimed to be a "Deist" in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ as "the divine Author of our blessed religion." He encouraged missionaries who were seeking to "Christianize" the "aboriginals." He wrote in a private letter, "on my honor and the faith of a Christian." He publically wrote of "the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God." He encouraged seekers to learn "the religion of Jesus Christ." He even said to his soldiers, "To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian." Not bad for a "luke-warm" Episcopalian!
Arguments for Washington's Unbelief
Clearly, Washington's faith has been denied by recent scholars. The scholarly consensus since the Washington bicentennial in 1932 is that he was a Deist, a non-religious person who believes in a remote and impersonal God. But when the evidence is considered, is it clear that Washington was a Deist? Typically, the evidence employed to substantiate Washington's deism includes: he avoided the name of Jesus Christ; he used Deist titles for the name of God; he never seriously referred to the Bible; he was a Mason; he was a slave owner; he had an alleged tryst with Sally Fairfax, a married woman. A careful study, however, shows these arguments fail to remove the legitimacy of Washington's faith.
Washington venerated the name of Jesus Christ, using it thousands of times in worship, although rarely doing so in his commonplace writings. Yet this practice is consistent with Christians to this day. Washington's titles for deity are not those of Deists as claimed. Instead, they are the terms of the orthodox clergy of his day-some 95 different ones in all-and names that Deists did not use.
Moreover, Washington was Biblically literate, referring to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation hundreds of times. He even publically endorsed an evangelical study Bible.
The bylaws of the Masonic Order of Washington's day prohibited "stupid atheists and deists" from being members! For Washington to have been a Mason then was actually an evidence of being a Christian, not of being an unbeliever!
Tragically, Washington was a slave-owner. Yet he alone of all of our Founders who held slaves had the courage to advocate the abolition of slavery and to provide for their manumission and support in his will.
Washington's relationship with Sally Fairfax reveals his emotions were moved at a vulnerable point in his young military life, but their honor remained unsullied, and his friendship with the Fairfax family was never tarnished.
In sum, to prove a vital faith does not require perfection, a standard needed only for a hagiography. Instead, a vital faith demands an authenticity of faith and character over the course of a life. So while Washington was not perfect, he was a man consistently concerned about faith, character and honor, referring to them hundreds of times.
Arguments for Washington's Christian Faith
The evidence of Washington's religious life reveals a vast array of data that substantiates Washington's vital life of faith.
1. Washington's family was explicitly Christian and actively Anglican. His childhood education was conducted under Anglican tutors.
2. His military career was framed by morning and evening prayers following the Christian "divine service" of the Book of Common Prayer. Washington's military vocabulary manifested Christian theological terms: pardon, redemption, atonement, grace, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, justification, imputation of guilt, appeal to heaven.
3. He married a devout Christian and trained their adopted children under Anglican clergy, buying them Christian text books, prayer books, and Bibles. Martha and their adopted grandchildren affirmed that Washington was a Christian.
4. He governed in the Anglican Church, taking vows to its Christian worship and doctrines. His attendance, contributions, and involvement in issues concerning church government and religion in the House of Burgesses were exemplary. His ecclesiastical vocabulary was extensive.
5. He sponsored eight children for Christian baptism, something that Thomas Jefferson would not do. Jefferson's Unitarianism prevented him from taking the required vows to the Christian faith. Washington did not hesitate to take these Christian vows.
6. He encouraged the clergy and chaplains as a military, ecclesiastical, and civil leader. When such were not available, he performed their functions, leading in prayers. He conducted the Christian funeral for General Braddock in 1755. His granddaughter wrote, "His mottoes were, 'Deeds Not Words'; and 'For God and My Country.'"
7. As a reader, listener and collector of Christian sermons, his vocabulary was replete with theology. He writes of God some 140 times, the divine 95 times, heaven 133 times, Providence 270 times, and uses various other honorific titles for God some 95 times. He alludes to approximately 200 different biblical texts, some of them scores of times, and does so in ways that show he was remarkably biblically literate.
8. He was a praying man, evidenced by a prayer book he ordered to fit in his pocket. More than 100 prayers in his own hand are found throughout his private and public letters. Even his enemies acknowledged his prayer life.
9. Washington was aware of human spirituality, referring to the human spirit, and acknowledging the Holy Spirit and His work. Accordingly, he manifests concern for prayer, dependence on Providence, and trust in God.
10. Washington identified himself as a Christian when he freely wrote, "On my honor and the faith of a Christian . . ."9 He called on his army to be Christian soldiers: ". . . The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."10
11. Washington never claimed to be a Deist and criticized Deistic thought and ethics. Thomas Paine, the patriotic writer of Common Sense, was Washington's friend. But Paine, the critic of revealed religion in the Age of Reason, received Washington's silence. Instead, Washington's letters manifest a commitment to revelation joined with a "rational ground for belief." He described himself as "no sceptic on normal occasions."
12. Contemporaries such as Major-General Henry Lee, Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, Reverend Jonathan Boucher, President James Madison and historians like Aaron Bancroft, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jared Sparks, and James K. Paulding considered Washington to be a Christian.
To conclude, Christian faith must be an integral part of our description of our Founding Father, for Christianity was an integral part of Washington's life.
Peter Lillback
Dr. Peter A. Lillback is President and Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary located in Philadelphia. Dr. Lillback also serves as the President of The Providence Forum, the non-profit organization that is committed to preserving and promoting America's spiritual roots of religious and civil liberties. He just completed his service at Proclamation Presbyterian Church PCA after nearly twenty years. He is married and has two grown daughters.
---------------------------
1 The reader is invited to refer to my George Washington's Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum Press, 2006), pp. 25ff for scholarly references.
2 Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 2004).
3 Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents From Washington to FDR (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995).
4 Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997).
5 Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington A Biography. 7 Vols (New York:, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948).
6 James T. Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (New York: Signet, 1984).
7 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 37, 5-13-1776.
8 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
9 George Washington, 1763, George Washington letter to Robert Stewart , April 27, 1763, John Rhodehamel, ed., George Washington Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 108.
10 Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, vol. V, pp.244-245
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Group Wants Christianity Out of History Books
Group wants Christianity out of history books
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/14/2010 4:00:00 AM
The Texas Board of Education is holding public hearings and will vote this week on the content of textbooks, which will impact many other states that follow Texas' lead.
Committees of teachers and experts have crafted the proposal that will be up for consideration by the State Board of Education today (Thursday). Dozens of amendments and ideological battles are expected. Whichever curriculum standards the board chooses will be the guideposts for teaching history and social studies to some 4.8 million K-12 students for 10 years. (More details from Associated Press)
One of the major problems is a push by a small group that wants to censor religious information regarding historical figures from textbooks. Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at Free Market Foundation, tells OneNewsNow the group has been very aggressive.
"We just think it's ridiculous," he says. "If you're going to talk about history and social studies, we should be doing it accurately; we should do it in a factual way," Saenz contends. "If some of our historical events and figures, [and] part of their history and significance has to do with their religious beliefs, then students should not be banned from being taught about that."
Saenz cites an example of Martin Luther King, Jr., and suggests that if teachers acknowledge him, they should also be able to say he was a Christian and how that influenced his role in the civil rights movement. The legislative affairs director says opponents are bringing up the tired and false argument of separation of church and state.
"The reality is it's undeniable that our country has a rich religious heritage [and] that the faith of our founding fathers had a tremendous impact on our government and law," he notes. "And so to teach students...otherwise, it's just wrong and it's something that we hope the State Board of Education won't tolerate."
Initial votes will be conducted this week, and a final vote will be tallied in two months. Those decisions will establish textbook content for the state for the next ten years as other states will purchase and use those same textbooks.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/14/2010 4:00:00 AM
The Texas Board of Education is holding public hearings and will vote this week on the content of textbooks, which will impact many other states that follow Texas' lead.
Committees of teachers and experts have crafted the proposal that will be up for consideration by the State Board of Education today (Thursday). Dozens of amendments and ideological battles are expected. Whichever curriculum standards the board chooses will be the guideposts for teaching history and social studies to some 4.8 million K-12 students for 10 years. (More details from Associated Press)
One of the major problems is a push by a small group that wants to censor religious information regarding historical figures from textbooks. Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at Free Market Foundation, tells OneNewsNow the group has been very aggressive.
"We just think it's ridiculous," he says. "If you're going to talk about history and social studies, we should be doing it accurately; we should do it in a factual way," Saenz contends. "If some of our historical events and figures, [and] part of their history and significance has to do with their religious beliefs, then students should not be banned from being taught about that."
Saenz cites an example of Martin Luther King, Jr., and suggests that if teachers acknowledge him, they should also be able to say he was a Christian and how that influenced his role in the civil rights movement. The legislative affairs director says opponents are bringing up the tired and false argument of separation of church and state.
"The reality is it's undeniable that our country has a rich religious heritage [and] that the faith of our founding fathers had a tremendous impact on our government and law," he notes. "And so to teach students...otherwise, it's just wrong and it's something that we hope the State Board of Education won't tolerate."
Initial votes will be conducted this week, and a final vote will be tallied in two months. Those decisions will establish textbook content for the state for the next ten years as other states will purchase and use those same textbooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)